4 ms·
What's going on here, as far as I can tell, is Connecticut is preemptively recognizing (by statute) a constitutional right that has been recognized in many cour
by JackC 14y ago
What's going on here, as far as I can tell, is Connecticut is preemptively recognizing (by statute) a constitutional right that has been recognized in many courts around the country, but not yet in Connecticut.
As really helpful context, take a quick look through Glik v. Cunniffe, which held that there's a First Amendment right to record police, and that police in the First Circuit are liable for money damages if they arrest someone for recording.[1] Seriously, take a look, it's a great statement of what the Constitution is all about -- the First Amendment stuff starts on page 8.
The background is that police officers are ordinarily not liable for harm committed in the course of doing their job. This is called "qualified immunity," and without it you'd be crazy to be a police officer. But it's "qualified" because they are liable if they violate a "clearly established" right. Under Federal law, if they do that you can sue them for damages.[2]
What Glik held is that the right to record police officers is a clearly established First Amendment right. That means anyone who gets arrested for recording police officers has their clearly established constitutional rights violated, and can sue.
This is probably (hopefully) true anywhere in the country. But so far it's only been tested in the First Circuit and a handful of other courts. What Connecticut is doing here is basically preemptively recognizing the right without the need for a test case in their jurisdiction. It's a very cool move.
(On the other hand, if they don't pass this law, that doesn't mean you can't sue police officers who arrest you for recording. Seriously, read Glik.)
[1] http://www.righttorecord.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/10-1764P-01A.pdf http://www.righttorecord.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/10-1...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983#As_Later_Amended_and_Placed_in_U.S._Code_as_Section_1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983#As_Later_Amended_a...
- excuse-me 14y agoYes - I realize this is either a cynical political game to make a politician look like a champion of freedom / a salutary reminder to the police about the constitution (delete as appropriate) Of course any police officer that can't think of a dozen things to arrest someone for - probably wouldn't be on the street anyway!